The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Lemonade311
I do not see any similarity with Sears at all.
AI capabilities are being massively overhyped. The AI models will never produce 100% accurate results due to the mathematical and statistical limitations of the process. Therefore can you imagine studios producing a film and then using some AI platform to dub and or localize it and then just issuing the resulting product without manually verifying the result. Once you start checking the resulting product, you might as well have manually done the dubbing/localising in the first place. I am not sure that the authors/scriptwriters would be too happy either with an approximate translation of their work.
Details of Dyson case available on the internet, but reasons for rejection of Dysons appeal not clear.
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The EU's highest court dismissed an appeal made by Britain's bagless vacuum cleaner maker Dyson on Thursday for 176 million euros ($193.39 million) compensation from the European Commission for alleged losses due to EU energy labelling rules.
Dyson had challenged rules introduced by the EU executive in 2014, saying labelling requirements on vacuum cleaners discriminated against its technology, misled customers about the efficiency of some vacuum cleaners, and unfairly benefited its German rivals.
"The Court of Justice rejects all the arguments put forward by Dyson and thus upholds the judgment of the General Court. Consequently, the action for compensation brought by Dyson is dismissed definitively," the court said in its judgment.
Dyson had won the backing of the Luxembourg-based General Court in 2018, which scrapped the labelling rules, but the same court dismissed Dyson's case for compensation for losses allegedly incurred because of the rules.
A spokesperson for Dyson said the company "made history when it won its case in 2018" and that fact "makes today's judgment on damages all the more perverse".
If I am not mistaken Dyson won a case recentlt against the EU but were refused compensation with no right of appeal. Very simmilar circumstances where their vaccuum cleaners were classified incorrectly. The EU are literally a law unto themselves.
The problem here is that they are entering a completely new market. How are they going to sell the product to customers who they have had minimal or no previous involvement. Assuming the product will be sold as SaaS with initial charge followed by annual fee based on usage, sales to enterprises will take time to negotiate. This means I can see cash flow becoming a serious problem to Blackbird.
This company needs to start paying dividends once short term debt has been repaid next year. Until then I see no prospect of a significant increase in price above current levels. It is not much more than a utility stock without fracking.
Gdog
The word "afoot" is derived from the Old English word "on fote," which means on foot. Adequately describes the speed of any progress being made by Tremor methinks.
I suspect we are still following the EU regulations in this respect.
Grossly undervalued this company. Perhaps when the Japanese acquisition is finally completed it will rerate.
Chicken and egg situation here regarding SP, the lower the share price the greater the risk of substantial dilution if the company needs to raise capital. I believe that cash burn and cash available equation is restraining investors particularly as trials are going slower than many anticipated and current high interest environment pushing up the cost of capital.
I think the Scancell board might learn more from reading the FARN phase I/II trial update to learn how to communicate by RNS to shareholders. (Not ramping here, just comparing communication style with presentation followed by question and answer session).
I think that the current share price is reflecting the company's cash flow situation. Under the current UK investing 'sentiment' any company with negative CF and having less than two years 'cash' is on a knife edge. It is easy to get into a SP death spiral forcing massively discounted Rights Issue, asset sales (IP) etc. Scancell is no exception here and LD's interview did nothing to dispel these fears. This is compounded by a realisation by many shareholders that whilst trial results are very promising, timeframes are extending outwards. This obviously puts more pressure on cash flow. This is my interpretation of the situation anyway.
Not sure what this will contribute to bottom line.
I am sure they would be cash flow positive by now were they not investing in the creator platform. This is a game changer for this company if they can pull it off. Normally software development projects are frouht with risk of overun. Hower in this case the basic tech is well proven and up and running. We would expect that the bulk of the work outstanding is in the user interface development and as Ian said in the recent interview pises little risk. Late 2023 introduction of this platform would seem to be targeted by the company. Not long to wait and finances are there for at least the next two years.
Thanks jonhas, hadn't appreciated that we will have to wait until 2024 to see any bottom line benefit from Amobee purchase. Though I would have expected some Amobee costs to be written down in 'exceptionals' and thereby excluded from adjusted EBITDA.
Re above discussion regarding company's forecasts for 2023. I have difficulty reconciling figures as follows: revenue forecast $400mil (2022 was $335mil) with adj EBITDA at $140 to $145 (2022 was $144.9). Unless cost of sales and or admin are forecast to increase by a substantial amount ie approx $65mil, the forecast revenue must be overstated or EBITDA figure is understated. This inconsistency is concerning me. Anyone able to explain this apparent discrepancy.
The first installment of the settlement should have been received on 5th March. Yet no RNS has been issued to this effect. Surely NANOCO should have informed shareholders to this effect along with net amount retained
by NANOCO after costs.
The 9th January RNS IMO was a belated attempt by BT to cover his back when he realised he would be open to criticism for over ramping the ageement he was to make with Samsung . Nothing more nothing less. However to expect shareholders to reverse their posions as has been suggested by a certain poster on here is unrealistic as all the RNS did was to confuse. We have had no communicatio from BT since, which speaks volumes but he can find time to make presentations elsewhere.